alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Ingles Markets, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 29, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Ingle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    ROBERT P.
INGLE                                    
|Robert P. Ingle Chief Executive Officer  November 28, 2007
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1456 

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2017 

Mr. STRANGE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with 

fertilization. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sanctity of Human 

5 Life Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DECLARATION. 

7 In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, includ8 ing Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Con9 stitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Con10 gress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amend11 ment to the Constitution of the United States— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1456 IS

1 (1) the Congress declares that— 

2 (A) the right to life guaranteed by the 

3 Constitution is vested in each human being, and 

4 is the paramount and most fundamental right 

5 of a person; and 

6 (B) the life of each human being begins 

7 with fertilization, cloning, or its functional 

8 equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function 

9 or disability, defect, stage of biological develop10 ment, or condition of dependency, at which time 

11 every human being shall have all the legal and 

12 constitutional attributes and privileges of 

13 personhood; and 

14 (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, 

15 each State, the District of Columbia, and all United 

16 States territories have the authority to protect the 

17 lives of all human beings residing in its respective 

18 jurisdictions. 

19 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

20 For purposes of this Act: 

21 (1) FERTILIZATION.—The term ‘‘fertilization’’ 

22 means the process of a human spermatozoan pene23 trating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to cre24 ate a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, 

25 which is a new unique human being. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1456 IS

1 (2) CLONING.—The term ‘‘cloning’’ means the 

2 process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that 

3 combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a so4 matic cell to make a human embryo. 

5 (3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING.—The terms 

6 ‘‘human’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include each and 

7 every member of the species homo sapiens at all 

8 stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of de9 velopment, created by the process of fertilization, 

10 cloning, or its functional equivalent. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

January 31, 1950

No. 54006.

#### Lunham & Reeve, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62465-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 court dismissed the protests.
NO. 07-11-0165-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

JANUARY 30, 2012 

_________________________ 

COREY CONNER, 

 Appellant 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

__________________________ 

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

NO. 2010-426,098; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING 

__________________________ 

Memorandum Opinion 

__________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant Corey Conner challenges his conviction of murder by contending the 

State improperly bolstered and vouched for the credibility of its witnesses during closing 

argument. We affirm the judgment because the complaint was not preserved for 

appeal. 

 Error pertaining to jury argument is waived by the failure to make a timely and 

proper objection. Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), cert. 

denied, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 905, 178 L.Ed.2d 760 (2011); Miles v. State, 312 S.W.3d 
2 

909, 911 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d); Lange v. State, 57 S.W.3d 458, 

467 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d). Moreover, the grounds underlying any 

objection uttered at trial must comport with those asserted on appeal. Pena v. State, 

285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Because appellant did not object to some 

of the comments in question and the objection raised regarding others failed to comport 

with his complaint on appeal, the purported errors were not preserved for review.1

 

Appellant concedes as much but nonetheless asks us to deem the complaint “plain 

error” under United States v. Gracia, 522 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008) and dispense with the 

preservation requirement. To do that, however, would be to ignore holdings of the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals akin to that in Estrada. We may not do that. Instead, 

we invite appellant to propose his request for a new standard of review to the Court of 

Criminal Appeals. 

 Accordingly, the issue is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed. 

 Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice 

Do not publish.

 1

At one point, appellant objected to the prosecutor’s reference to the statements purportedly 

made by individuals who did not testify. When the prosecutor explained that he was only referring to the 

fact that statements were taken and not to their content, appellant responded, “[t]hat’s fine.” The court 

then overruled the objection.
| Certification of Chief Financial Officer | Exhibit 32(b) |
|------------------------------------------|---------------|
| EastGroup Properties, Inc.               |          |

|   | By: /s/ N. KEITH MCKEY                                                                 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | N. KEITH MCKEY                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|   | February 25, 2011                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ENVIRO-CLEAN
OF AMERICA, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,432,267
<SECURITIES>                                 3,562,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,386,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                   156,349
<INVENTORY>                                  1,822,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,169,630
<PP&E>                                       1,640,295
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,286,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,430,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,406,064
<BONDS>                                      3,659,751
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    175,000
<COMMON>                                         6,608
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,323,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,430,176
<SALES>                                      8,147,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,147,763
<CGS>                                        4,496,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,717,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             420,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,362,255
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,597,431
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,764,824
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,764,824
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1194 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

51) II-F-1 

Docket Number: 

A-90-15 

Printed 5/13/2008 10:52:15 AM Sheet 51 of 89 
P.2 

J"L 2 4-1990 

Mr. Barry Felrice 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

400 Seventh Street, SW . \ i'> 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Felrice: 

Thank you for your recent response to our request for 

comment on the safety aspects of the Volkswagen iron-based 

diesel fuel additive system. We have sent that letter on to VW 

along with the enclosed transmittal letter. 

EPA has also been approached by Lubrizol regarding a 

similar additive that is based on copper rather than iron. I 

have enclosed relevant portions of the Lubrizol submittal along 

with two letters from EPA to Lubrizol, the latter of which 

mentions details of the Lubrizol submittal that may be 

especially pertinent to your review. All information on the 

Lubrizol additive is being placed in public docket A-90-15. 

Lubrizol has addressed to some degree the potential direct 

human exposure to the liquid additive as could occur in a 

vehicle crash that ruptures the additive storage tank (if that 

approach were used for additive addition) or during final 

vehicle dismantling, but we would be interested in any input 

you would care to give on this or other related issues. Please 

note the information provided in the Material Safety Data Sheet 

in Appendix H of the large report. 

I appreciate any assistance you can provide on this. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

RICHARD D.WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosures 

cc: Dr. Mark Levin, Lubrizol 

TSS:Harvey:cah:2565 Plymouth Rd.:X-237:06-29-90:ID# 4211H 

Reviewed by: JCABANISS:sbh:X27647:AR-455:7/24/90:Wang No. 1458T
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 13
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-04884-TR Document 95-1 Filed 06/02/09 Page 10 of 10
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 6, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14332

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 95-00159-CR-CB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOE LOUIS HARRELL,

a.k.a. Joe Lewis Harrell,

a.k.a. Motorcycle Joe,

a.k.a. Little Joe,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(August 6, 2009)

Before CARNES, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Joe Louis Harrell, pro se, appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

following the grant of his motion for a reduced sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Harrell argues

that the district court erred in failing to grant him a downward variance in light of

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007),

and in failing to address his assertions of error in his trial and original sentencing

hearing. He also argues that the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing to

address his arguments relating to these issues.

“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its

legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d

983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in

the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a

sentencing rage that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be

“consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” Id. The applicable policy statements provide that a § 3582(c)(2)

proceeding is not “a full resentencing of the defendant.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3).

“[A]ll original sentencing determinations [must] remain unchanged with the sole

exception of the guideline range that has been amended since the original

2
sentencing.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000).

Furthermore, Kimbrough is not applicable to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. United

States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, (U.S. May

18, 2009) (No. 08-8664). A defendant is not entitled to a hearing on a § 3582(c)(2)

motion. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(b)(4) (stating that the defendant's presence is not

required at a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding).

Harrell’s argument for a downward variance is foreclosed by precedent. See

Melvin, 556 F.3d at 1192-93. Harrell’s remaining assertions of error were outside

the scope of the proceeding, see Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781, and he was not entitled to

a hearing on his motion, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(b)(4).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3
# C_2018052EN.01002701.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (OJO sunglasses)

(Case T-792/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark OJO sunglasses - Earlier international word mark oio - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 052/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: N & C Franchise Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia, and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eschenbach Optik GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 (Case R 32/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Eschenbach Optik and N & C Franchise.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders N & C Franchise Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders N & C Franchise Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

1

---
# sec6_rsnc_2019

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2019-10	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JAY C. CRESSMAN, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC.,

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2783

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 22nd day of November, 2002, it having been reported that

the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, it is ORDERED that

the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-02783 Document 19 Filed 11/22/2002 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-04983-RB Document 107 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 9 of 9
From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Lowry, Nick (OST) 

Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:44 PM 

John Mietus Jr. Qohn@mietuslaw.com) 

B. Edelman (bedelman@hbs.edu); Dockets Mail; Podberesky, Samuel (OST); Graber, 

Kimberly (OST) 

Edelman v Cathay Pacific; Motion for extension, Dkt DOT-OST-2013-0027 

This notice is In reference your motion of February 14, 2013. 

By a motion dated February 14, 2013, Counsel for Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., requested an extension of time in which 

to prepare an answer in the above-referenced third-party complaint to March 8, 2013. The Respondent's motion 

advises that the Complainant was contacted and has no objection to grant of the request. 

This office has decided to grant for good cause the requested extension. This notice is issued under authority 

assigned in 14 CFR 302.405{a). 

Note to Dockets: Please place this e-mail in Dkt DOT-OST-2013-0027. 

Nicholas Lowry 

Senior Attorney 

Oflice of Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings 

Oflice of the General Counsel 

U.S. Dept. ofTransportation 

202-366-9351 (ph) 

1
Exhibit 99.1


                      Park City Group, Inc. & Subsidiaries
                            Certification Pursuant To
                 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

In connection with the annual Report of Park City Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randall K. Fields,
Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:   February 20, 2003


/s/ Randall K. Fields
--------------------------------------
Randall K. Fields
President and Chief Executive Officer




                   (Balance of page intentionally left blank)


<PAGE>

                      Park City Group, Inc. & Subsidiaries
                            Certification Pursuant To
                 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

In connection with the annual Report of Park City Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward C. Dmytryk,
acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:   February 20, 2003


/s/ Edward C. Dmytryk
----------------------------------
Edward C. Dmytryk
Acting Chief Financial Officer



                   (Balance of page intentionally left blank)